The Evolution of SADC

Published in Monograph No 19, SADC and Subregional Security, February 1998



The Southern African Development Community (SADC) was established in 1980 as the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC). For the first twelve years of its existence, SADCC operated without a legal framework, treaty or protocol. Conscious of the poor record of regional economic integration schemes in Africa and in other areas of the developing world, the founders opted for a loose organisation to promote co-operation and co-ordination rather than formal integration. Their aim was to reduce signatories' external economic dependence, mainly but not exclusively on apartheid South Africa, and to promote development. SADCC's original strategy was to concentrate on promoting co-operation in the field of infrastructure. In practice, its primary activities were aimed at the co-ordination of members' development initiatives and assisting in raising donor funds for these projects.

At the 1989 SADCC Heads of State meeting in Harare, a decision was finally taken to formalise the organisation and to provide it with a legal status to replace the existing Memorandum of Agreement. Four years of consultation followed. The Declaration and Treaty of the SADC, eventually signed by Heads of State and Government in Windhoek in 1992, expressed confidence that recent developments, such as the independence of Namibia and the imminent liberation of South Africa, would "... take the region out of an era of conflict and confrontation, to one of co-operation; in a climate of peace, security and stability. These are prerequisites for development ..."6

With the change of name, the emphasis of the community also changed from `development co-ordination' to `development integration'. In essence, the true vision of SADC has become one of regional trade liberalisation, and the eventual full economic integration of the Southern African countries. SADC has also increasingly come to be regarded as a subregional political organisation of the type envisaged under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. As a result, there has been considerable ambiguity and confusion on the real nature of SADC, with the organisation often entering areas far removed from that of development co-ordination and facilitation.

This ambiguity has been exacerbated by recent initiatives aimed at rationalising SADC to enable a more effective pursuit of its integration aims and at providing a sensible framework for the co-ordination of activities of member states in the realm of politics, defence and security. SADC is now in a stage of fundamental flux and uncertainty with respect to both the economic and the political and security activities of the organisation.

The economic activities of SADC have been pursued through a complex system of commissions and sectors, which have been formed to guide and co-ordinate regional policies and programmes in specific areas. The sectors are allocated to individual member states to co-ordinate and provide regional leadership. There are currently sixteen Sector Co-ordinating Units, which are also further divided into a number of subsectors which may be co-ordinated by other countries. For example, Zimbabwe is responsible for the sector on Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources, which is divided into the following seven subsectors:
  • Agricultural Research and Training (Botswana);
  • Food Security (Zimbabwe);
  • Forestry (Malawi);
  • Inland Fisheries (Malawi);
  • Wildlife (Malawi);
  • Livestock Production & Animal Disease Control (Botswana); and
  • Marine Fisheries (Namibia).
However, the capacity of many countries to co-ordinate activities in their allocated sectors and subsectors is limited as is progress in that particular sector. Very few member states have officials who are appointed to deal solely with SADC issues, and in cases where the local civil service suffers a lack of resources in the fulfilment of its daily, ongoing tasks, SADC responsibilities are `over-and-above' functions which are often left for last.

By 1996, it was apparent that some sort of structural reform was necessary. A committee of four member states (Malawi, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe) was entrusted with the task of conducting a Review and Rationalisation of the SADC Programme of Action (SPA).7 This led to the appointment of three specialist consultants from Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe and the launching of a study in July 1996 to appraise the entire SADC through consultation with the relevant stakeholders in each country. The consultants' report, published in April 1997, was based on information gathered through interviews, questionnaires, and a series of workshops conducted in the SADC region.

The team of consultants devised a methodology for conducting a trial evaluation of the regional impact of the current SADC project portfolio. This revealed that only 22 per cent by number and twelve per cent by monetary value of the portfolio meet the criteria of being immediately acceptable as SADC projects. The implication is that many ostensibly regional projects are in fact national projects. Their report also indicated that SADC should be more focused on the provisions of the Treaty and should be affordable in view of the scarce resources in the region. Moreover, SADC should move from a project approach, steered by co-operating partners, to the harmonisation of policies and procedures that will enhance integration. The major recommendations contained in the consultants' report are summarised below.8

THE CREATION OF NATIONAL SADC COMMITTEES

In each member state, a national SADC committee should be formed involving all stakeholders. These committees should focus their activities on policies and strategies for integration and community-building in the SADC region. The committees should have a permanent chairperson and a secretarial staff appointed by the national contact ministry, but should not operate as government institutions. A meeting of the chairpersons of the national SADC committees in member states should replace the current meeting of senior officials.

Each national SADC committee should form subcommittees in the following fields:
  • Human Resource Development and Technology;
  • Food production, Natural resources and Environment;
  • Economics, Finance, Investment and Trade;
  • Infrastructure and Communication; and
  • Community Development.
These national subcommittees should meet regularly for the purpose of harmonising policies and standardising procedures, in order to accelerate integration and steer the process of community development.

THE CREATION OF REGIONAL DIRECTORATES

The current sector/commission arrangement in SADC should be replaced by five regional umbrella institutions corresponding with the disciplines in the subcommittees of the national SADC committees. These regional institutions may either be centralised in Gaborone or decentralised in countries like Mozambique and Zimbabwe, in buildings owned by SADC. The institutions are called directorates for the purpose of the study, and should be staffed by regionally appointed officials based on a work study yet to be undertaken.

The responsibility of the directorates would be to implement the policies created by the Subcommittees within the national SADC committees of member states, and they would report to the meeting of senior officials (the chairpersons of national SADC committees).

RATIONALISING THE SADC SECRETARIAT

The SADC Secretariat should be headed by an Executive Secretary who reports to the Council of Ministers. The following four units are foreseen in the Secretariat:
  • a Policy Unit, comprising a mixture of economists and strategic planning specialists, responsible for regional planning;
  • an Information Unit, to manage public relations and information collation and dissemination;
  • a Conference Unit, to service the Summit, Council of Ministers and officials meetings as well as regional workshops and meetings; and
  • an Administration and Finance Unit, to service regional appointees.